The problem of Capitalism

Gee.,That’s my suggestion.

 

Bring a gun.

 

1) Singapore is racially and culturally divided into three groups, with no common history .. and not even a common language. Australia is a multiculture, and will never again see homogeneity. The Netherlands is fast losing its homogeneity to spastic immigration. Furthermore, the non-native cultural groups involved in all three examples are almost always virulently opposed to all but flaming free market capitalism.

2) VOLUNTARY, means it will never happen. Do you understand that? Democracy and all that?

3) What do you mean by 'I hope they find something congenial'?

4) We're all unproductive at certain points in our lives. Young, sick, old. This isn't about the able bodied and unproductive (ie, addicts, gamblers, the lazy, etc - who should be left to their chosen fate without interference). Who will you burden?

5) The 'whole spectrum' in the First World, can only be included at immense cost to those in the Third World. Are you seriously that cruel? Surely you're compassionate enough to exclude First Worlders who choose their own poverty (see above re: gamblers, addicts, the lazy, etc), in the interests of those who don't choose the awful fate of searching in the dirt for a grain of rice?

 

But I'm considering what are - objective - necessities in my community, and all first world communities; the Sahara and the third world can with assistance be then developed to a similar standard - after we have got our own house in order, eg, with an above poverty level job guarantee. Your claim that that food is the only necessity for life in a modern post-industrial community, is simplistic at best (see below).

Learn about fiat money and the abolition of the gold standard, and then get back to me.

As a matter of fact, our entire disagreement is probably based on this very point ie what is 'money' (intrinsically worthless bits of paper, or code in computers) as opposed to real resources in the form of desirable goods and services, starting with the necessities to enable productive contribution by everyone to the community.

You claim measure is the value. Nonsense. An orange might be worth all the money in the world, to an individual lost in the Sahara.

Floating exchange-rate fiat currencies determine value, in a global capitalist system.

Me locked in the insular? You know that's false...I have always argued for an international rules-based system. BTW, Keynes presented his 'clearing union' concept* (at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference), to which all nations would belong, which included his 'bankor' as a unit of international exchange. Nothing to do with gold, but a means of dealing with persistent trade imbalances between nations.

*(but which was rejected by the victorious US after the war).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe

"In its early years, Zimbabwe experienced strong growth and development. Wheat production for non-drought years was proportionally higher than in the past. The tobacco industry was thriving as well. Economic indicators for the country were strong.

From 1991 to 1996, the Zimbabwean ZANU-PF government of president Robert Mugabe embarked on an Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) that had serious negative effects on Zimbabwe's economy. In the late 1990s, the government instituted land reforms intended to evict white landowners and place their holdings in the hands of black farmers. However, many of these "farmers" had no experience or training in farming.[9] From 1999 to 2009, the country experienced a sharp drop in food production and in all other sectors.

The banking sector also collapsed, with farmers unable to obtain loans for capital development. Food output capacity fell 45%, manufacturing output 29% in 2005, 26% in 2006 and 28% in 2007, and unemployment rose to 80%.[10] Life expectancy dropped.[11]The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe blamed the hyperinflation on economic sanctions imposed by the United States of America, the IMF and the European Union".

So your statement is proved incorrect: food output alone was down by 45%!

I accept English is not your first language (and I haven't "ripped out" anything), yet I will see if we can understand the issues re AGW ie the theory that global warming is caused by Man.

Indeed most scientists say global warming is caused by Man (but to varying extent among different scientists?).

Now, I don't want to get caught up in that argument , because the pushback from a minority of scientists, as well as many non climate scientists (like you and me) is profound...and for my part I haven't noticed any rise in sea level where I live.

Now, I observe your claims about 'faith" versus reality; and I accept some validity in your argument re the unproven relationship between AGW and CO2 emissions, because the data is complex and the time scales are vast.
I'm agnostic at this stage, ie no "faith" - I'm waiting for the facts, eg when the sea level rises half a foot at a much faster rate than ever before cf. rises after previous ice ages......then even you and I won't be able to deny the truth of AGW.

That was the first point I wanted to clear up, but I obviously failed. Is my position any clearer now?

Well I hope you now understand my position; what another poster may have said re AGW is not my stance (at this stage).

First, I didn't mention ozone gas ( so you are thumping me with a dispute with another poster), but I presume you are referring to this:

"The Ozone Hole. Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) is an organic compound that contains carbon, chlorine, and fluorine, produced as a volatile derivative of methane and ethane. ... Very little chlorine exists naturally in the atmosphere. But it turns out that CFCs are an excellent way of introducing chlorine into the ozone layer."

Nothing to do with "faith". CFC's have been banned now for a reason (to stop destruction of the ozone layer)

'It' being the poisonous gases, carcinogenic particulates, smog and acid rain spewing into the air as a result of burning filthy fossil fuels.
No "faith in that" - it's fact.

GHG's have not eradicated life, but filthy fossil is causing ecological damage, illness and increased mortality. That's why cities in Europe with high traffic congestion are banning diesel cars. That's fact, not "faith".

Addressed above.

So the smog, acid rain, ecological degradation, poisoning of underwater supplies, lead poisoning from high density traffic, damaging effects of particulates on human health - all of this can be ignored according to you.

We can certainly close down the filthy fossil industry in a couple of decades, which would be a smart move obviously, and if AGW and CO2 are reality, then that matter gets dealt with at the same time. A good insurance policy, I would say.

English is your second language, right ? So I'll cut you some slack.

https://www.google.com.au/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQJtHAKSX_GpqNRdSxnC9frDwIlcA:1569727855327&source=hp&ei=byWQXZHREdD69QOoj5PgCw&q=CFC+on+ozone&oq=CFC+on+ozone&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l9.2504.10092..10459...0.0..0.268.2520.0j7j5......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j35i39.C21fcHMIEcI&ved=0ahUKEwjRxNX5i_XkAhVQfX0KHajHBLwQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

"The most recent research indicates that lead can damage the infant brain even at blood levels as low as 5 m/dl (5)."

Read the article; are you going to deny the value, and conclusions, of any research?

A long diatribe all addressed above, especially your fear that your financial status may be negatively impacted by a rapid transition from filthy fossil to clean green.

The reverse is true, and we will all be infinitely better off, when the planet is running on sunshine, and wind with pumped hydro backup (plus maybe some nuclear in certain localities).

Capitalism can play its role.

[BTW, the failures of capitalism are not caused by regulation but by human nature. At the start (several days ago) I noticed you understood that 'rights', in a predatory world, only exist as a result of human awareness of 'justice', and the subsequent invention of rule of law, not as some objective truth. (which I think Gotzilla and bringiton are getting confused about).

But after that you have gone completely astray, as proved by the silly proposition that the problems of capitalism are due to excessive regulation. As Pohbear noticed, without regulation we would be living in burning cities.

Back to "costs":

Money creation in central banks (as opposed to money creation in private banks when they write loans for creditworthy customers), along with an international Keynesian 'clearing union' mechanism, will all be required.

Note : resouces + labour + education = real wealth.

Hence the IMF can look at the cost of transition bill (several trillion 'dollars' or whatever) for eternity, and resources will still exist for further limitless human enterprise including eg space exploration and colonisation.

 

You stated "you have access to all the money you want".

OK, we have covered this before.

ie you have access to all the money you want, provided you have the knowledge to avoid the myriad traps involved in living on welfare

All nonsense, based on your misconceptions of how wealth is created; and indeed almost everyone would prefer an above poverty job, to life on below-poverty-level welfare. You only have to witness the distress people display when they lose their above poverty jobs.

Refuted above. It's not about a "desire for more stuff", its a desire to participate at above poverty level.
[Though blind, greedy capitalists do make every effort to sell crap to individuals who really need to husband their resources in other ways, to improve their circumstances].

A nation (whether multicultural or not) is still "a large body of people, aka a community...inhabiting a particular defined area of land", with government to "promote the common welfare" (explicit in the US constitution).

Refuted above. You are making stuff up to fit your conception of voluntary association, which is merely a subset of the community of the nation's citizens who are all subject to the rule of law as defined by the nation.

 

1) No. If you have the determination to do the hard yards of acquiring money. The only thing stopping us in the democratic First World is ourselves. And our parents (via their disinterest in our advancement), if we're young. If refugees with no money, no education, and no English produce university educated professionals in a single generation, there is no excuse.

2) You are engaging in a very bizarre fantasy, if you think all First World humans are willing to work. That hasn't been true since pre-welfare .. 100 years, at least. Post event distress does not indicate determination to succeed, obviously. You are looking at all the wrong measures. The laziest person on earth will throw a tantrum when his armchair is taken from him, that doesn't make him ambitious, noble, or interested in building a new one.

3) This 'participation' you fantasise about doesn't exist for many many people. As soon as we became rich and safe enough to survive without constant hard work, we killed universal participation. It will NEVER come back .. not unless and until we return to starvation.

4) Do you understand that in a large multicultural society, you will never have agreement on the things you're talking about? It's not even remotely possible. Migrants (and their descendents) can be virulently opposed to anything at all that isn't 100% democratic capitalism (and with good reason, given the awful politics and economies some of them came from).

5) You can never have that 'law' when 50% refuse to vote it in. How are you unable to see this?

 

A significant factor. How do propose to deal with it?

Some of them do, for the rest it's the same as above (ie for non immigrants).

Participation in a post industrial world in which much work is done by machines absolutely requires an above poverty Job Guarantee, in service type, non-market based industry desired by the public.
Below poverty welfare is a one-way ticket to self destruction. [OTOH above poverty welfare in the form of a UBI most likely will destroy incentive, in many (not all) individuals].

Refuted above. You are living in the past.

Rule of law is not a matter of agreement, it's a matter of equality before the law. Law itself is open to continuous change.

Addressed above.

 

1) by not being a crap parent myself, obviously. it's all any of us can do. and the LEAST any of us can do if we claim to care about a Better World.

2) that's not the point. the point is that if even ONE family can do that, then the means exist for ANY family to do it.

3) are you genuinely incapable of comprehending that a universal work ethic is a thing of the past? it doesn't matter what the work is, as long as the means of survival are freely available (welfare, or whatever socialist type stuff you guys dream of), you will never see full work participation. and the more 'assistance' you provide, the less participation you will get. on such a path, eventually there will be a world of workers, and a world of dependents - just as there is now, but the ratios will be far worse. if you get a 50/50 ratio you'll be doing incredibly well.

4) on the contrary, I'm thinking ahead, always.

5) no idea what you're talking about here. HOW will you implement your Better World (legally), when 50% don't want it, and won't vote for it?

 

I don't believe rights are inalienable. You give up -- alienate -- your rights when you don't respect others' rights. That should be obvious.

 

<yawn> You can chant your "property, right or wrong" mantra all you like. It's still evil, despicable garbage I have conclusively refuted.

 

I invite readers to confirm for themselves that that claim is false, and that you still have not identified a single false statement I have made.

 

Of course. All exclusive land tenure is obtained by nothing but force, and is therefore just as validly overturned by force. But we know that private individuals using force is a recipe for societal failure, so we have governments to administer possession and use of land -- yes, by force. There is no other possible way.

 

Wrong. There are four main groups -- Chinese, Malay, Indian and British -- and they have a common history of 200 years and a common language: English.

Obviously multicultural societies are not homogeneous. Free market capitalism is an oxymoron.

It has already happened.

Something they can be comfortable with.

The community.

Foreigners are not the responsibility of the community. Citizens are.

 

So when you refer to "landowner" you're referring to the state? Is that what I'm hearing?

 

Except it’s never been refuted, which you know perfectly well. Once never had a right to my property. I will easily stop you if you try and take it. And comparing owning humans to owning land is retarded.

 

1) Have you lived in Singapore recently? The "British" have barely any impact today. And no, there is no shared culture. It's a relatively new nation, patched together from three distinct cultural/racial/ethnic groups.

2) What has already happened?

3) What does that mean, in practice? Are you going to expel the non-workers?

4) Who is 'the community'? And what about those who don't agree to care for other peoples' cast offs? What will you do about THEM?

5) When a tiny proportion of humanity gobbles the vast majority of resources, we need to think about it for moral reasons. It may not move us to directly participate in the lives of Third Worlders, but it should move us to consider our part in that resource gobbling.

 

The problem with Capitalism is you can't get a job from a poor person....think about it.

 

C + I + G

Nonsense. There are no problems with "Capitalism". Look up the definition, because you are apparently lacking one.

The real challenge facing all economies today is Full Employment, which is the hard-part. Any such challenge has a predominant equation:
GDP* = C + I + G (Consumption plus Investment plus Government Spending).

The challenge is in ensuring that GDP that generates Income that is Consumed must be distributed fairly and equitably. Not equal, but equitable.

Any nation that has too much going to too few thus impoverishing too many is unacceptable. The "trick" is to get people out of abject poverty by means of good jobs. Which is far easier said than done.

Especially in those very rare times when Age Change occurs. We've had three in the past two centuries. What arrived in the latter part of the 18th century was the Agricultural Age, which had existed since the dawn of mankind. Mostly all our Founding Fathers were owners of large agricultural properties whose only real concern was to free themselves from taxation by a distant English (or French) King. Which all started to come apart in the 18th century.

The 19th century saw the advent of technology that pushed mankind into the Industrial Age. Which allowed initially enormous wealth to be generated that went unfairly to too few.
Which is now terminating - at least for the major developed countries.

What care now entering the Information Age forced upon us by the Internet. Where work is no longer concentrated in production centers (called "factories"), and Consumption neither concentrated in physical "markets". The Information Age is changing everything, which has a great consequence on the way we live, where we live and how we live.

And as I never tire of saying - it behooves all nations to provide the essential ingredients for its individuals to live decent lives. That is,
*Good Healthcare at very low cost in order to lead decent lives physically, and
*Nearly-free Tertiary-level Education to give workers the intellectual tools necessary to obtain decent salaries (in order to pursue financially decent lifestyles).

That "trick" will not be easy for as long as any country is obsessed with Wealth Accumulation. In such countries, the odds of the above happening to the communal benefit of all individuals are not great.

The wide cleavage between the very-poor and the very-rich (in terms of Income Disparity) will remain - with the economic middle-ground being shared inequitably as well ...

*GDP is Gross Domestic Product

 

Have you ever worked for a poor person? If not, my statement stands.

 

And such we see the subjective nature…

Could you tell me more of what measure you have to decide you “have got our own house in order” so you then can go forth and help prevent poverty… Of course this is also subjective, but when you’re trying to tell people how they should live, it would be best if you tell us when you’re going to act like you preach…

Yeah, you really don’t know I get it…

No, our disagreement is based completely on your expectations that you have rights to expect reward from the hard work of others. You seem to be up and down first you try to suggest I am an apologist for pure capitalism (which is irrelevant to money) and now you try to claim it is about the source used to value the market.

No, I don’t claim measure is the value at all… I claim money has made by the community to measure the value. To make universal value… The Orange has universal value to the group, while it can be immeasurable to the individual.

I am reminded of a 1st year university course which talks about a case study about this very point.
It goes, one man sold his house to another man for $1. Now the government decided this half million dollar house should have drawn much taxation in sale and so on. So they took the people to court and won the case.

The second case was that one man sold his house to another for precisely 1 walnut. Again the government took them to court but lost the case.

The rulings in case one was that while the people who made the deal valued that deal to $1 they used a universal valuation to determine the what value the house was. Since the house was built and maintained in that measurement it is perfectly reasonable that the people were deliberately devaluing the price and should be held to market value the house would expected to draw.

The second case failed that while all the previous points could be reasonably expected, the value of the walnut to both parties was exponential. While the government could put their universal value on the walnut. The nuts value on the seller could not be measured in the same method…


None of which say, the measure is the value. However, the value is measured.

that is one method yes, there are many more.

universal value… that is all…

Tell me, do you know how much of that was exported??? Do you know how much was eaten??? Do you even have any concept how much 45% production was then???

Doesn’t disprove my point that the problem isn’t they ran out of money, or even they dropped production but they devalued their currency. So far, you tried to tell me I was wrong because they didn’t run out of money, now you going to tell me I am wrong because I don’t agree with your produce production theory. What next, they had too many left handed people???

So, you wish to insinuate grammatical superiority… Honestly buddy, your not doing yourself any favours here…

So, here you rip out the “scientist believe”… Again I ask you, when did “could be” (or likely) turn into “is”???

Let me get this straight,

“the pushback from a minority of scientists, as well as many non climate scientists (like you and me) is profound

I'm agnostic at this stage, ie no "faith"”

Let me put it this way, you say that majority believe “dot dot dot” but a minority say this. What do you think faith is??? The belief of something without evidence??? And you don’t have faith??? I think either you’re trying to deceive the readers or your deluding yourself…

I mentioned it, while pointing out the growth that will occur from such gases and you said:

I ask again what regulations on Ozone gases??? And no I am not talking about Ozone layer… I thought you had a handle on this???

Way to misrepresent what was said… Love that disingenuous act you have made here…

Irrelevant dribble to what was said. Again way to go misrepresenting comments because you cannot argue the points made, make others and pretend they are right…

No, you just lied and tried to call it evidence.

irrelevant, not what was said…

So I take it you have faith in your claim, you just cannot find credible study to support it.

I believe I stated, “we are well aware of the impact of lead’ but that isn’t what you claimed. YOU claimed it was from burning lead in fossil fuels, So far your batting zero buddy. By the way, trying to insult only draws the same.

Nah, you’re just trying to divert from the fact you know less than you thought about the issue.

Nah, just idealism. Clearly you don’t understand the concept of paying for things…

Oh dear, Could you explain who places the regulations on capitalism??? Then could you explain what determines those regulations should be??? After you have bashed us all with your diatribe about what the failure of capitalism is, you might understand my original point “ people complaining about the corruptions they put on capitalism is pathetic”

Honestly, rights and justice are constructs of humans. They are subjective by nature and are irrelevant to issues of capitalism.

No, I haven’t gone astray, I have maintained the stance. You are the person who drew the point away by first of all laying ignorance on the points made and then by trying to subvert the comments.

Again, not about excessive regulation either and I never said no regulations… I have simply said “your complaining the regulations you willing demand are the problem”

LOL, not much can be said about this except, shows lack of understanding while trying to cram your beliefs down others throats.

 

Still mine. Want it, you’ll need to take it by force. Shame on you.

Ayn Rand: “To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument—is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment; you threaten him with death if he does. You place him in a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life—and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.

“Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: “Your money or your life,” or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: “Your children’s education or your life,” the meaning of that ultimatum is: “Your mind or your life”—and neither is possible to man without the other.—http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.html

And the same to any community that sanctions their needs as a claim on my life.

 

This is a Debate Forum. I was responding not about poor-people but how economies function and dysfunction.

I decide what I write, not you ...

 

Capitalism—The fountainhead of life, and an eternal enemy of liars, cheats, thieves, and tyrants. A friend to the Rockefeller’s, the Carnegie’s, the Fords, the Rutans, the Rands, the Larsen’s, the Jobs, and the common men of the Earth; but pure poison for the Jessie James, the Dillingers, the Peolosis, the Trumps, and the mediocre of the world. In other words: Capitalism—good for the good and bad for the bad.

 

Well, that’s weird.

 

OK...subjective.. objective...

Nevertheless, universal above poverty level participation is achievable and necessary, obviously. It's simply a matter of resource deployment.

Meanwhile: "You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your young men are in prison, your schools and hospitals are broken"...
D J Trump, on conditions in the inner city ghettos in some US cities (spoken during the 2018 campaign)

See above.

see above.

Fiat money is issued by government.

Nonsense. A proper deployment of resources will enable all to contribute according to their ability. Reward for effort (or genius) follows.

I'm saying fiat money has no intrinsic value - its exchange value (within and between nations) is determined by the system of deployment and development of resources; and yes, capitalism must be regulated, because capitalism is based on competition, with winners and losers.

Yes the orange has ...value to the group, because...…. it is food, not because is has exchange value measured by money, which is only a convenience; the orange could be exchanged by agreement for any other item.

Ultimately, resource availability and deployment determines prosperity.

In MMT, the value of fiat money is created when the currency- issuing government, buys available resources (inc. labour) from the private sector; ie, the government first spends the money into existence, and then taxes it back as necessary to prevent inflation (caused by excessive demand on resources).

Proof that money has no intrinsic value: if humans had a sharing instinct, instead of a selfish instinct, then resources (in the form of desirable goods and services - regardless of money value - could be developed and deployed without the need for money at all.

(This is equivalent to the famous dictum of communism: "from each according to ability, to each according to need".... but unfortunately humans have a "greed" instinct...).

Measured by what? The court decided the walnut had a value decided by the buyer and seller, not by the government.

...ultimately measured by development and trading of resources, nationally and internationally.

Re Zimbabwe, Weimar republic, Venezuala; hyperinflation was caused by sudden loss of productive capacity - and value measured in money

Price of food - consumed in Zimbabwe - rocketed, regardless of quantity still available for export (if any).

Pass.

My point all along has been: AGW caused by CO2 - as asserted by most scientists - has an element of what you call "faith"....I agree with you on that point. That's the 3rd time I have made that point, do you understand now?

So you completely misunderstood that paragraph of mine (in quotes).

OK, just read it to mean : I'm agnostic ie (I don't know) about AGW caused by CO2. The true believers would say I have no faith....

Like I said, you did not understood my position, despite my third attempt. I have said - and this is the 4th time - I don't know whether the scientific orthodoxy - that AGW is caused by CO2 emissions - is true or not.

Forget ozone, I'm not interested in ozone in this discussion.

I'm interested in the by-products of the filthy fossil industry: poisonous gases (not ozone, or CO2) but oxides of nitrogen, CO (carbon monoxide), as well as carcinogenic particulates, smog and acid rain.

......Lord, give me the patience of Job....

All addressed above.

You are lying. You did not say anything about lead at all before I mentioned it in relation to lead in petrol, just as I did not say anything at all abour ozone, before you brought it up.

.

Yes, lead in petrol, originally used as a catalyst to reduce engine 'knocking, was removed after the damaging effects of lead in the environment were discovered.by scientific research (link supplied in my previous post).... so we now have unleaded fuel (still a filthy fossil fuel because of the carcinogenic particulates and poisonous gases in car exhaust gases, especially diesel engines.

Pass.

Clealry wrong, as addressed above.

The government.

The law, as determined by the legislature, and judiciary.

Regulations are not corruptions. Regulations are designed to promote the common welfare. Regulations may not always achieve the desired results, but that is no excuse to assert that regulations are corruptions.

Correct.

Wrong, rights arise from the sense/awareness of justice which is unique to the human species.

Sorry to destroy your ideology, but it needs destroying, because it is merely a reflection of the predation and unregulated competition of the animal world in which we evolved but from which we must escape if we are to survive on this planet.

see above: competition is the essence of capitalism; and self-intereted competiton is a reflection of our animal natures.

OTOH, an international rules based system is a concept arising from our (ie homo sapiens) intellect, not our animal instincts.